Bobf: Some of the best conversations around here are either off topic or off tangent

Nick: Maybe I'm being brain-dead again, but what is "split filtering"? And where can I get info on the Roscolux filters?

Normally you look at your print and go "Hmmm this needs more/less contrast" so you stick a different filter in the enlarger and go with it.

With spilt filtering you make two test strips. By the end of it you'll have time and contrast figured out. Hopefully.

Try this:

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/ktphotonics/pdf/BasicSplitGradePrinting.pdf

The filters are:
http://www.rosco-ca.com/products/filters/index.cfm?fuseaction=Roscolux

The big photo stores should have them in stock at around $6 for a sheet close to 2feet x2feet. You cut it to size and store the rest until you need it. #68 and #389 should be the ones you need. Now you could also spend more money and get something like the Kodak #48 and #57.

Basically spilt filtering takes advantage of the way VC paper works. Green light for soft contrast and blue for hard [Or it could be the other way]

Here's a blasphemous thought.

What about scanning the negs/slides and using a printer like the Epson 2200? Best of both worlds really. I can have the lab process the film to my specifications (normal, push, pull) then I have all the control that anyone using a traditional darkroom has in my digital darkroom and can create a print that is exactly what I want. I don't need to make a test strip or make multiple prints to get it right because if my monitor and printer are properly calibrated the whole process is WYSIWYG and I can print on a passel of different papers to give the images a different look and feel.

Thanks Nick. So I wasn't completely brain-dead this time Just never heard of it...

I grabbed the pdf and looked over the filters. I'll have to devote some time later to read through it, but it looks interesting.

Quote:

On 2003-07-25 06:37, BobF wrote: Here's a blasphemous thought. What about scanning the negs/slides and using a printer like the Epson 2200? Best of both worlds really. I can have the lab process the film to my specifications (normal, push, pull) then I have all the control that anyone using a traditional darkroom has in my digital darkroom and can create a print that is exactly what I want. I don't need to make a test strip or make multiple prints to get it right because if my monitor and printer are properly calibrated the whole process is WYSIWYG and I can print on a passel of different papers to give the images a different look and feel.

A lot of people do just that. My old scanner doesn't handle negs all that well unless they're on the thin side. Good for underexposed Type 55
And, yes, I do consider it blasphemous

But here's a thought. If they came out with a black silver-oxide inkjet ink so you could print in silver, would that be real photography?

_________________
----------------------------------------

"Ya just can't have too many GVIIs"
----------------------------------------

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: RichS on 2003-07-25 07:19 ]</font>

Well Rich, there's where you get into the big debate isn't it. What is and what is not photography. Is digital capture photography? Is it still photography if you scan your negs/slides and do anything but b&w silver-gel printing? How much "editing" is allowed in a program like Photoshop before you cross the line from photography to graphic art? Are things like slide/neg sandwiches photography?

I am more traditional than a lot of people but less traditional than others. I have no problem scanning my negs/slides and editing them in the digital darkroom. Where I draw the line is in doing more editing than could be done in a traditional wet darkroom. I routinely use multiple exposures in my photography, slow exposure, camera movement, etc. (wouldn't be doing that with a Crown :wink:). Slide/neg sandwiches are fine too because they are the result of something I captured in camera. That's my personal defining line. If I captured it in camera, it's photography. If the same effects are applied in the digital darkroom, it's graphic art.

Anyway, not wanting to start a digital vs. film flame war or get into debating what is and what is not photography unless it's done in a civilized manner, just trying to continue the tanget(s) of the original question.

I suppose I'm a bit more traditional when it comes to many things. I draw the line at simply making up for the deficiencies in my scanner to duplicate a print on-screen.
But this could deffinitely start a nasty discussion. And it would deffinitely be way off topic for here. Maybe not so much in the LF photography forum?
And we certainly don't want to get our beneficent moderators angry

By the way, the comment about silver ink was a joke. Although it does have possibilities...

LOL. Maybe you're right. Although my Epson 3200 does a great job with my medium format film and can also scan 4x5 sheet film.

The quality of the scanner does make a big difference to be sure but the scanning software also plays an important role.

Anyway, enough of that. What tangent can we go on next?